The Competent Authority Shall Order Dissolution of a Trademark-Infringing Company Failing to Change the Infringing Company Name as Requested.

　The trademark right dispute between the shabu-shabu chain store “White Sugarcane Shabu Shabu” (Chinese: 白甘蔗養生涮涮鍋; “White Sugarcane”) and Taiwan Sugar Corporation (TSC) ended up in White Sugarcane’s concession to change its store name for continued business operation.  It is, however, notable that infringers in many trademark disputes do not change their company/store names as ordered even after they have been found indeed infringing upon the registered trademarks of any other person in a final judgment with binding effects, and that has impaired the rights of the aggrieved trademark owners.  In view of this situation, the Ministry of Economic Affairs decided to add a third circumstance to Article 10 of the Company Act stipulating that competent authority may, ex officio or upon an application filed by an interested party, order the dissolution of a company if such a company fails to change its company name as ordered for a period over six (6) months after the entry of a judgment with binding effects. 

　Under current practices, a business entity shall complete corporate registration with the Department of Commerce of the Ministry of Economic Affairs by filing a reservation application to check and confirm if its proposed corporate name is identical to any registered ones.  The mechanism of reservation application, however, usually misleads applicants into believing that they hold the exclusive right in and to their corporate name and also leads to frequent occurrences of infringement upon well-known registered trademarks.

　Pursuant to Article 62 of the Trademark Act, a trademark right infringement shall be deemed to have occurred where consent of trademark right holder is absent from the condition that any person knowingly uses the specific word(s) contained in a well-known registered or a registered trademark as the company name, trade name of whose business, and accordingly dilutes the distinctiveness and impairs the goodwill of the said well-known trademark or causes confusion to relevant consumers of the said registered trademark.  (2008.7)

/CCS